JOINT OR SOLE CUSTODY?
[24] Both Garland and Brouwer presented as educated articulate young people, although both exhibited an amazing immaturity regarding their relationship with one another. I have no concerns as to certain common problems that are routinely found in these types of cases, such as violence, verbal abuse, or substance addiction.
[25] I find that both parties deeply care about Teegan and both are very capable parents. I have no concern about Teegan’s welfare while in the care of either of the parties. Moreover, both of the parties have the support of their extended families.
[26] When they discussed their respective positions regarding custody both parties referred to their ability to make decisions for Teegan. Garland testified that he was a dedicated father who wanted to be, and should be, fully involved in making all major decisions for Teegan. Brouwer testified that she had made all of the decisions for Teegan so far in her life and she saw no reason to change that situation.
[27] The Ontario Court of Appeal decisions in the cases of Kaplanis v. Kaplanis 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), (2005), 194 O.A.C. 106, and Ladisa v. Ladisa 2005 CanLII 1627 (ON CA), (2005), 193 O.A.C. 336 set out guidelines as to when a joint custody order may be appropriate. Those guidelines were summarized in the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Habel v. Hagedorn, [2005] O.J. No. 3556 (O.C.J.), and later adopted by this court in the case of Patterson v. Patterson, [2006] O.J. No. 5454 (S.C.J.).
[28] In summary, those cases determined that a joint custody order may be appropriate in three main types of cases:
1. Where the parties agree to a joint custody order;
2. Where there is a positive history of cooperation between the parties; and
3. Where it is appropriate to preserve one parent’s relationship with the child.
[29] In my view, the case before me falls into both category #2 and category #3 above. There is a positive history of cooperation between the parties, and a joint custody order is appropriate to preserve Garland’s relationship with Teegan.
[30] Regarding the cooperation of the parties, Quinn J. wrote in the case of Brook v. Brook, [2006] O.J. No. 1514, and I adopt, that “… one must take care not to hold the parents to an unrealistic level of mutual cooperation. After all, they are estranged. The cooperation needed is workable, not blissful; adequate not perfect.”
